The NHL lockout has taken entertainment away from hockey fans everywhere, so Gary Bettman decided to liven things up with a song on Thursday, going to the NHLPA offices in Toronto for a rousing rendition of a Queen classic.

After Tuesday’s surprise proposal from the NHL for a new collective bargaining agreement—six years of a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue between players and owners —a proposal that most observers, as well as NHLPA executives and rank-and-file, saw as a starting point to negotiations, the NHLPA started negotiating. Three counterproposals and one hour later, Bettman was telling the media that the league and union aren’t “speaking the same language.”

What did the players propose that was so revolting as to make Bettman, deputy commissioner Bill Daly, and four owners flee so quickly? Did they ask for free pony rides to and from games? Did they ask for Zamboni-driving privileges after practices? Were they speaking Swahili?

NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr summed up the union’s third proposal as: “We’ll move to 50-50 as long as you honor (existing) contracts.” The first proposal from the NHLPA on Thursday was for a gradual move from 57 percent to 50 percent over three years, while the second tied the players’ share of HRR to league growth before settling in at 50 percent by the fifth year, using the league-favored 5 percent growth rate.

All three proposals featured “50/50” as a centerpiece, even if the NHLPA did not get there the same immediate way that the NHL did. Regardless of the details of how the NHLPA proposals would get to a 50/50 split, the fact that they are willing to go along with the concept of a 50/50 split—which the owners have wanted all along, it seems—should have been enough to keep negotiations going.

Instead, the owners rejected all three proposals out of hand, and according to Elliotte Friedman of the CBC, immediately began “disputing any of (the NHLPA’s) proposals would have guaranteed 50/50.”

The official explanation came a little later, via Daly and through NHL.com. He focused on Option 3: "It's not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely, a 56 to 57 percent deal in Year 1 and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement. The proposal contemplates paying the players approximately $650 million outside the players' share. In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say 50-50, when really it is not.

"The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did."

It's unclear when the league ran those numbers, but they should have at least discussed their different approaches to math with the union instead of catching the next flight out of Toronto.

TSN’s Darren Dreger reported that the NHL could cancel “a big chunk of games” as soon as Friday, and Bettman alluded to that himself.

“Obviously, as the calendar ticks away, we’re going to be canceling more games,” Bettman said.

That was already clear. When the NHL released the details of its last CBA proposal on Tuesday, the league explicitly said, “As a practical matter … we must conclude a new written CBA by October 25.” If the NHL does indeed cancel games before next Thursday, without trying to negotiate further, it will be painfully clear that Tuesday’s proposal was a public relations ploy, designed to deflect attention from Monday’s revelations by Deadspin that the league is using focus groups to help shape its message of greed.

If the NHL was serious about making a deal, or even serious about negotiating, Bettman and his crew would have left Toronto without fire and brimstone talk. They would have taken the three proposals back to NHL headquarters, spent more time running numbers to figure out how far apart they were, and then come back with a counterproposal of their own, trying to bridge the gap further—perhaps backing away from some other demands in order to get closer to their desired deal.

Those other demands, such as a proposed five-year limit on player contracts, were not even discussed Thursday, as the NHLPA only made proposals on the HRR split, and how to get it to the owners’ desired 50/50. Even if the NHL disagrees with whether it was truly 50/50, they owed it to everyone—players, arena workers, hockey-affiliated businesses, and yes, fans—to at least try to negotiate. If Tuesday’s proposal was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, the NHL should have said so then, rather than sending the NHLPA on a two-day wild goose chase for the formula that would get negotiations rolling.

Tuesday was seen as a starting point. Thursday may have been the finishing point.